SUMMARY

Introduction
This paper is based on the implementation of LCA within the EIA of two wastewater treatment plant
case studies. In this paper they proposed a comprehensive operational methodology for implementing an
LCA within an EIA. From the literature they identified four steps of EIA that could theoretically benefit
from LCA implementation, i.e., (1) the environmental comparison of alternatives, (2) scoping, (3) the
impact prediction and (4) the impact of mitigation measures. For each of the EIA steps they did LCA
which has been implemented in two contrasting wastewater treatment plant projects and compared to
existing EIA studies and the result showed that the two procedures, i.e., EIAs with or without outputs
from LCA, led to different conclusions. On the basis of the results they found that the LCA in EIA is
very good for accuray and to consider all the impacts some of which sometimes seen as less considerable
impacts but in actual they have very huge impact when we do LCA in EIA.
For demonstration, they conducted LCA of each step of the EIA procedure as if both studies
were carried out at the same time. For example, during step (2), LCA was used to compare the alternative
scenarios based on standard Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) technologies because at that point the
system to be chosen and the precise future design of the processes are unknown. However, during step
(3), the actual design data was assumed to be available, and the impacts of the technologies were
assessed with LCA based on the actual data. LCA was therefore implemented at each relevant EIA step
with a specific goal and scope. Endpoint indicators are used for comparison or for environmental issues
identification. Midpoint indicators are used for eco-design and the identification of hotspots that need to
be mitigated. The results of the LCA approach are then compared with the conclusions of existing
current analytical methods or expert judgement mobilised in the EIA for each of those steps. Finally, the
possible contribution of LCA to EIA is assessed by analysing whether the LCA integration changes the
overall conclusions of the EIA study.
The case studies choice was based on three criteria, i.e., (i) availability of existing EIA reports,
(ii) availability of emission and resource use data and (iii) opportunities to identify different alternatives
to the proposed project. They decided to focus on the Environmental Impact Assessment of WWTPs in
France because the infrastructure projects including water management and their EIA has already been
done in Europe. WWTPs generate impacts on local water quality, and two contrasting case studies are
compared in terms of environmental constraints due to protected areas.
For the two case studies, they considered several WWTP alternatives in the respective EIA
studies. The LCA did not assess the Infiltration- Percolation (IP) because they always preferred vertical
Reed Bed Filters than Activated Sludge (AS) and Activated Sludge Sequencing Batch Reactors because
they have significant differences regarding treatment chronology, and the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)
data was not available for Biological Disks because this technology is not mostly used in France.
For all the WWTP models, agricultural spreading was considered to be sludge end-of-life, which
is the case in both case studies. Emissions to water and air were estimated for phosphorus, nitrogen,
carbon compounds and micropollutants. For all these substances, the influent composition is compared to
emissions and sludge compositions to comply with the mass balance. The data presented correspond to
the major operational parameters of a WWTP, the main infrastructure information, and conventional
emissions to air and water. A distinction was made in the LCIs between the foreground and background
activities to enable comparison with the EIA results. Foreground activities refer to civil engineering
works for the construction of the WWTP and to on-site discharge and land occupation during the
operational phase of the WWTP, whereas background activities correspond to the off-site activities
needed for the construction phase (production and transport of all materials and equipment), the off-site
activities needed for the operational phase of the WWTP (e.g., electricity production) and the sludge end-
of-life. The Ecoinvent database version 3.1 was used for all background data. Regarding the impacts of
the implementation of mitigation measures. These inventories involve coarse assumptions about civil
engineering works because the goal here is not to obtain accurate results but rather the orders of
magnitude of the potential impacts associated with such measures.
Tools
EIA procedure relies on tools either for impact identification (scoping) or impact prediction (impact
assessment). Different tools such as checklists, matrices, networks, consultations with local stakeholders,
map overlays, geographic information systems, expert systems, and professional judgement are usually
used to ensure that all potential impacts are detected. Among these tools many of authors have suggested
the use of analytical tools such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and this paper they have used LCA tool
for EIA.

Main Findings
1. LCA results for EIA step 2: alternatives
Case study 1: Considering the endpoint indicators, vertical reed bed filters are more efficient
than the activated sludge process for all three areas of protection (human health, ecosystems and
resources) and has smaller impact as compared to activated sludge for all midpoint categories,
except for eutrophication (freshwater and marine) and occupation of urban area because of (i) the
less effective treatment of nitrogen and phosphorus by reed bed filters and (ii) their higher area
requirements (extensive processes need more area per capita).

Case study 2: In view of the endpoint indicators, the naturally aerated lagoon system is worst
alternative for human health and ecosystems and have the second greatest impact on resource
depletion. The potential impacts generated by the activated sludge process are intermediate, and
the best alternatives are vertical reed bed filters and artificially aerated lagoons.

2. LCA results for EIA step 2: identification of key impacts

To judge the weight of the environmental concerns in the total impact of the WWTP,
they considered each midpoint and three endpoint indicators (human health, ecosystems and
resources). The conventional EIA system boundaries are expanded by LCA to the entire Life
Cycle of the WWTP. This will help to identify a broader set of impacts (in particular global
impacts), which is of great interest for the scoping step.
However, the conclusions depend upon the data, if there is any data gaps that will
influence the conclusions For example, only 15 micropollutant substances could be assessed,
either because they were not measured in the WWTP or because they were not characterised by
the impact method used in the study. Therefore, the impacts on human toxicity and ecotoxicity
may be underestimated and even eliminated during the scoping step (as for ecotoxicity),
although they are relevant.

3. LCA result for EIA step 3: impact assessment

With regard to the three global issues (climate change, fossil depletion and metal depletion),
most of the impact on climate change is attributable to direct atmospheric pollution during the
operating process of the WWTP (on-site activity, mostly CO2, CH4, N2O emissions), while the
depletion of coal and metal resources is due to background operations. In particular, off-site
construction (i.e. manufacturing and transportation of all the materials and equipment required
for the infrastructure) is the main contributor to metal and fossil depletion. The contribution to
the global impacts of off-site WWTP operations (e.g. production and transport of reagents,
and transport operations for maintenance) is not negligible, while the sludge has generally
less impact.
For the six regional/local issues, four impacts are essentially due to foreground activities;
eutrophication (freshwater and marine) and human toxicity are mainly dominated by the direct
emissions of the WWTP (operation on-site), and urban land occupation is directly related to the
area requirement of the WWTP (operation on-site). The remaining regional/local issues
(particulate matter formation and water depletion) can essentially be associated with background
activities. Sludge end-of-life still has a minor impact.
 Case study 2: Regarding global issues, most of the climate change impact is due to on-
site activities. As in case study 1, this is due to the on-site atmospheric emissions of the WWTP,
but in this case the contribution of emissions linked to diesel combustion during construction is
higher. Here, too, fossil and metal depletions are due to background activities. The sludge end-
of-life contributions are low but higher than in case study 1. For regional/local issues, the
conclusions are also similar to case study 1.
As for case study 1, half of the impacts are associated with foreground activities
(construction or on-site operation activities), whereas the others represent mainly off-site impacts
due to background activities of the. However, contrary to case study 1, for case study 2, the off-
site impacts are mainly due to background operation activities and, to a lesser extent,
infrastructure. Indeed, off-site construction is the main contributor for 1 indicator only (metal
depletion), versus 4 for case study 1, and off-site impacts of the WWTP operation are the largest
contributors to 3 indicators, versus none for case study 1. The contribution analysis also allows
an explanation of the observed differences in Fig. S5; compared to case study 1, the contribution
of climate change to ecosystem damage is higher in case study 2, essentially because of
electricity consumption during the operation phase of the WWTP but also because of the use of
polymers. On the other hand, the contribution of urban land occupation is lower because of the
compactness of the activated sludge process compared to reed bed filters, which require larger
land areas.
Based on these conclusions, other mitigation measures than those implemented in EIA
case studies without LCA could have been proposed. To decrease global impacts, the focus
should be on monitoring on-site atmospheric emissions and optimising water flows for case
study 1 or basin aeration conditions for case study 2 (AS) to avoid emissions of
nitrification/denitrification by-products (e.g., N2O). A system for collecting greenhouse gases
could also be implemented. Other materials for infrastructure could be preferred when possible.
Locally produced, renewable energy may be a good option to reduce impacts due to electricity
consumption. Transport itineraries for materials, maintenance or sludge end-of-life could
perhaps be optimised, and diesel vehicles could be replaced by less polluting vehicles. To
decrease local/regional impacts, the possible mitigation measures would mainly be on-site; there
must be additional efforts to decrease local discharges, even if they already are in line with
regulations. Land occupation should also be mitigated.

4. LCA results for EIA step 4: mitigation measures

The impacts of the implementation of the mitigation measures have been assessed for
case study 1, and their contribution to the entire WWTP impacts has been calculated. For
case study 2, fewer mitigation measures were set up, and they were not significant
enough to modify the inventory, e.g., the required amounts of materials and the transport
distances. In the case of a very extensive technology with few civil engineering works
such as reed bed filters, the impacts of the implementation of the mitigation measures
turn out to be significant. The same implementation of mitigation measures on activated
sludge would be smaller.
Note that if LCA can be used to assess the impacts of the implementation of the
mitigation measures, the final effectiveness of the mitigation measures was not evaluated by
LCA because it only assesses potential impacts, not predictions.
Gaps
Sometimes there is an expansion phase of any project so the impacts after expansion must be considered
by doing the LCA in EIA to know the further impacts. In case 1 they just have suggested reed bed filter
than activated sludge process in the Urban areas because of smaller impact but in Rural areas the
activated sludge process is beneficial than the reed bed filter and the life timing of those filters is less.
The separate LCA for different technologies could be done both studies and for both urban and rural
areas. According to data gaps the conclusions can be change so their LCA for EIA is must separately.